The Shawnee County Planning Commission on Jan. 12 deferred action on proposed regulations for solar energy conversion systems after more than an hour of testimony from residents, technical experts and environmental groups.

Planning staff presented the draft rules and a timeline of work dating to 2022, explaining the county had adopted a one‑year moratorium on utility-scale solar farms and since then had researched neighboring-county rules, floodplain and land-density maps, airport and urban-growth overlays, fire-district input and the Shawnee County comprehensive plan. Joanie, a planning staff member, told commissioners the draft aims to balance development opportunities with public-safety and land-use constraints and recommended moving to the public hearing.

The hearing drew dozens of speakers. Paul Post, vice president of the Topeka & Shawnee County League of Women Voters, said the regulations’ 240‑acre ceiling would “essentially result in a ban on solar energy in Shawnee County” and urged more study of appropriate project size. Multiple speakers representing environmental groups, clean-energy networks and local residents — including Jonathan Smith, Zach Distora of the Sierra Club, Emily Wolf of the Kansas Local Power Network and others — asked the commission to increase the acreage cap (suggested alternatives included 640–1,500 acres), permit battery storage under modern NFPA/UL standards, and reconsider a two‑mile separation rule that could prevent neighboring voluntary projects.

Several technical witnesses and commenters urged clearer definitions in the draft. Don Taylor, a professional engineer who submitted written comments, said terms such as “community scale” and “utility scale” were not clearly defined in the document and noted that utility-scale interconnection processes (through the Southwest Power Pool) can require lengthy studies. Opponents raised safety and long‑term cleanup concerns: Diane Denham cited petitions opposing industrial solar and warned about battery fires and groundwater contamination in extreme incidents; Richard Johnson questioned company longevity and maintenance responsibilities for decommissioned sites.

Staff responded to several points, saying battery storage had been intentionally treated as a separate policy issue to allow focused consideration and that definitions referenced in the moratorium and existing zoning were to be applied. Commissioners discussed options including approval, denial, amendment, or deferral. Commissioner Dan Bryan moved to defer action to allow additional work sessions, updated maps and time for commissioners to consider specific acreage proposals; the motion passed unanimously. Staff set the next consideration for Feb. 9 at 6 p.m. and said public comment would be accepted on any specific changes proposed before that meeting.

The action preserves the draft regulations for further refinement rather than adopting final rules immediately. Commissioners and staff said they expect to return with updated maps, potential size alternatives, and targeted opportunities for public comment on any amendments.